This NFL substance abuse policy is little more than a glorified albeit antiquated morals clause. The notion of someone being suspended for a year because they tested positive for alcohol is extreme, at least compared to the rules those of us who work in the "employment at will" real world face. Was drinking or getting stoned giving Josh Gordan any kind of competitive advantage over the rest of the players in the league? I have to think even the little kids this policy is apparently aimed at influencing by making an example out of those who fail it are at home struggling to understand to logic and are asking their daddies if they are risking their own livelihoods having a beer on a Sunday afternoon watching football.

players in general are not forbidden from having drinks. gordon was because he was a repeated violator of the league's substance abuse policy, and one of the conditions of his reinstatement from his latest suspension was that he doesn't drink. if he has a problem with that, he should take it up with the union that negotiated the policy with the league

hobson54 wrote:players in general are not forbidden from having drinks. gordon was because he was a repeated violator of the league's substance abuse policy, and one of the conditions of his reinstatement from his latest suspension was that he doesn't drink. if he has a problem with that, he should take it up with the union that negotiated the policy with the league

I am aware of the circumstances. My comments weren't intended as some kind of plea for Josh Gordon so much as they were directed at the stupid policy negotiated by these two self-interested, morally ambiguous parties (NFLPA and the owners). When you have so much money at stake, it seems that idiotic policy is almost inevitable as both sides agree on an indefensible standard designed not to encourage positive personal conduct but protect both sides from accusations they didn't do enough to address the problem of substance abuse.

GratefulJet wrote:This NFL substance abuse policy is little more than a glorified albeit antiquated morals clause. The notion of someone being suspended for a year because they tested positive for alcohol is extreme, at least compared to the rules those of us who work in the "employment at will" real world face. Was drinking or getting stoned giving Josh Gordan any kind of competitive advantage over the rest of the players in the league? I have to think even the little kids this policy is apparently aimed at influencing by making an example out of those who fail it are at home struggling to understand to logic and are asking their daddies if they are risking their own livelihoods having a beer on a Sunday afternoon watching football.

I am sure that everyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver admires your perspicacity.

I am sure that every professional athlete whose life has been destroyed because he drove while intoxicated agrees.

GratefulJet wrote:This NFL substance abuse policy is little more than a glorified albeit antiquated morals clause. The notion of someone being suspended for a year because they tested positive for alcohol is extreme, at least compared to the rules those of us who work in the "employment at will" real world face. Was drinking or getting stoned giving Josh Gordan any kind of competitive advantage over the rest of the players in the league? I have to think even the little kids this policy is apparently aimed at influencing by making an example out of those who fail it are at home struggling to understand to logic and are asking their daddies if they are risking their own livelihoods having a beer on a Sunday afternoon watching football.

I am sure that everyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver admires your perspicacity.

I am sure that every professional athlete whose life has been destroyed because he drove while intoxicated agrees.

Was Josh Gordon suspended for a DUI or for having alcohol in his system? I certainly wasn't defending driving under the influence, so you can take your sarcasm and stick it.

Or maybe you think everyone who tests positive for alcohol should be suspended from work for a year.

GratefulJet wrote:This NFL substance abuse policy is little more than a glorified albeit antiquated morals clause. The notion of someone being suspended for a year because they tested positive for alcohol is extreme, at least compared to the rules those of us who work in the "employment at will" real world face. Was drinking or getting stoned giving Josh Gordan any kind of competitive advantage over the rest of the players in the league? I have to think even the little kids this policy is apparently aimed at influencing by making an example out of those who fail it are at home struggling to understand to logic and are asking their daddies if they are risking their own livelihoods having a beer on a Sunday afternoon watching football.

I am sure that everyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver admires your perspicacity.

I am sure that every professional athlete whose life has been destroyed because he drove while intoxicated agrees.

Was Josh Gordon suspended for a DUI or for having alcohol in his system? I certainly wasn't defending driving under the influence, so you can take your sarcasm and stick it.

Or maybe you think everyone who tests positive for alcohol should be suspended from work for a year.

I think you are totally off-base.

-the point of a negotiated substance abuse policy is not just to punish people for things like DUIs and DWIs, it is to help prevent them from ever getting into such situations in the first place. And a person who has a substance abuse history should never consume alcohol, period. There is no doubt that Josh Gordon knew the restrictions under which he was operating as someone already suspended in the past by the league for substance abuse. If he chose to violate them, he has no one to blame but himself.

-the comparison to "employment in the real world" is absurd. The lifestyle and environment in which professional athletes are enveloped is totally different and can be conducive to all kinds of abuses for those who are inclined, thus the rules that govern them must reflect that different reality. Also, their celebrity and the fact that kids tend to idolize them and see them as role models is an important consideration. They get paid huge sums of money and in exchange they accept upon themselves that they must represent the league in a certain way and according to certain standards. They choose that life willingly, and the notion that this policy is based on a "glorified/antiquated morals clause" ignores the constant headlines and stories about athletes getting into trouble because of substance or alcohol abuse.

GratefulJet wrote:This NFL substance abuse policy is little more than a glorified albeit antiquated morals clause. The notion of someone being suspended for a year because they tested positive for alcohol is extreme, at least compared to the rules those of us who work in the "employment at will" real world face. Was drinking or getting stoned giving Josh Gordan any kind of competitive advantage over the rest of the players in the league? I have to think even the little kids this policy is apparently aimed at influencing by making an example out of those who fail it are at home struggling to understand to logic and are asking their daddies if they are risking their own livelihoods having a beer on a Sunday afternoon watching football.

I am sure that everyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver admires your perspicacity.

I am sure that every professional athlete whose life has been destroyed because he drove while intoxicated agrees.

Was Josh Gordon suspended for a DUI or for having alcohol in his system? I certainly wasn't defending driving under the influence, so you can take your sarcasm and stick it.

Or maybe you think everyone who tests positive for alcohol should be suspended from work for a year.

I think you are totally off-base.

-the point of a negotiated substance abuse policy is not just to punish people for things like DUIs and DWIs, it is to help prevent them from ever getting into such situations in the first place. And a person who has a substance abuse history should never consume alcohol, period. There is no doubt that Josh Gordon knew the restrictions under which he was operating as someone already suspended in the past by the league for substance abuse. If he chose to violate them, he has no one to blame but himself.

-the comparison to "employment in the real world" is absurd. The lifestyle and environment in which professional athletes are enveloped is totally different and can be conducive to all kinds of abuses for those who are inclined, thus the rules that govern them must reflect that different reality. Also, their celebrity and the fact that kids tend to idolize them and see them as role models is an important consideration. They get paid huge sums of money and in exchange they accept upon themselves that they must represent the league in a certain way and according to certain standards. They choose that life willingly, and the notion that this policy is based on a "glorified/antiquated morals clause" ignores the constant headlines and stories about athletes getting into trouble because of substance or alcohol abuse.

GratefulJet wrote:This NFL substance abuse policy is little more than a glorified albeit antiquated morals clause. The notion of someone being suspended for a year because they tested positive for alcohol is extreme, at least compared to the rules those of us who work in the "employment at will" real world face. Was drinking or getting stoned giving Josh Gordan any kind of competitive advantage over the rest of the players in the league? I have to think even the little kids this policy is apparently aimed at influencing by making an example out of those who fail it are at home struggling to understand to logic and are asking their daddies if they are risking their own livelihoods having a beer on a Sunday afternoon watching football.

I am sure that everyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver admires your perspicacity.

I am sure that every professional athlete whose life has been destroyed because he drove while intoxicated agrees.

Was Josh Gordon suspended for a DUI or for having alcohol in his system? I certainly wasn't defending driving under the influence, so you can take your sarcasm and stick it.

Or maybe you think everyone who tests positive for alcohol should be suspended from work for a year.

I think you are totally off-base.

-the point of a negotiated substance abuse policy is not just to punish people for things like DUIs and DWIs, it is to help prevent them from ever getting into such situations in the first place. And a person who has a substance abuse history should never consume alcohol, period. There is no doubt that Josh Gordon knew the restrictions under which he was operating as someone already suspended in the past by the league for substance abuse. If he chose to violate them, he has no one to blame but himself.

-the comparison to "employment in the real world" is absurd. The lifestyle and environment in which professional athletes are enveloped is totally different and can be conducive to all kinds of abuses for those who are inclined, thus the rules that govern them must reflect that different reality. Also, their celebrity and the fact that kids tend to idolize them and see them as role models is an important consideration. They get paid huge sums of money and in exchange they accept upon themselves that they must represent the league in a certain way and according to certain standards. They choose that life willingly, and the notion that this policy is based on a "glorified/antiquated morals clause" ignores the constant headlines and stories about athletes getting into trouble because of substance or alcohol abuse.

+1. Very well stated Jetski.

Yes, those both certainly are valid points. What is not valid is insinuating that I advocate drunk driving and the tragic consequences thereof, as Jetski did, simply because I criticized the policy. It is actually possible to discuss and debate these matters without resorting to personal attacks, and I thought that was the basis for creation of this board.